96 vs 98

[joebf]

???I have what seems to be an all original 1896 rifle. It's in good shape. It seems to have less dollar value than an 1898 in similar condition. Any thoughts as to why? TIA

[Tom Butts]

Just wondering what makes you say that the '96 has less dollar value that a '98. Has someone made you an offer or have you had someone appraise it or something? Remember, if you take it to a dealer, they will most likely be offering you less than the actual value because they want to make a profit on it.

In general, a full length, uncut '96 should be worth more than a comparable '98 just because there were fewer made.

Tell me more about your gun. Does it have a cartouche on the stock, etc? And where your cost/value information comes from.

Regards,

Tom

[joebf]

"Source" is simply an impression gained after reading posts on the other Krag boards over the last couple of years. My Krag seems to have the correct stock cartouche. In nice shape, though the bore is frosted. Thanks for your response.

[Ned Butts]

One factor I see in the observed price situation is the fact that there were just more M'98's produced. 61,897 M'96 rifles as opposed to 324,283 M'98 rifles. All or almost all M'96 rifles saw action in a tropical climate and many were arsanal up dated and issued to National Guard after the adoption of the M'03 Springfield. While some early M'98's would see similar service the sheer number diffrence would lead me to believe that more M'98's could have seen light duty and spent more time in the rack, thus leaving more prime condition M'98's out there. Personal taste can also play a big factor, but the bottom line is that in equal condition a M'96 rifle is worth more than a M'98 due to production numbers and service history.
Ned